COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act [or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false]”. 21. Sections 158BC and 158BD of the Act are machinery provisions. Section 158BC of the Act provides the procedure for block assessment and Section 158BD

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA

house of the first defendant on March 23, 1990 and seized those gold ornaments which weighed 2128 gms. along with other assets. Plaintiff said that she filed a petition before the Income Tax Officer for return of the ornaments but he refused. The plaintiff then issued a notice to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa, defendant No.7

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

undisclosed income which would include the sources from which such amount of Rs.10 crores was advanced as loan to a totally stranger person, unconnected with either the affairs of assessee or any other link, to justify as to how a person in Ahmedabad has advanced Rs.10 crores to the Company situated at Kolkata in West Bengal for the purpose

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

house and his chambers were disallowed because his object and purpose in travelling was mixed and not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the profession. Coming now to Indian cases; In Mask & Co. v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Madras [(1943) 11 ITR 454] the assessee in breach of his contract sold crackers at a lower rate and a decree

M/S. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)

The appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid

undisclosed and immediately passed as restraint order. (iv) The respondent acknowledged that 60 days from the date of issue of restraint order expired on 3.8.2005. (v) It is admitted that on 4.10.2005 warrants of authorization in respect of the same accounts only were again issued by DIT. (vi) On the strength of such warrants and seizure operation